1st  Series. 


No.  74 


* 


THE 

DOCTRINE 


OF 

ATONEMENT. 


BY  THE  LATE  REV.  HENRY  TURNER, 

OF  NOTTINGHAM,  ENGLAND. 


PRINTED  FOR  THE 

American  sanitarian  Association, 


BOSTON; 

CHARLES  BOWEN,  141  WASHINGTON  STREET. 

August,  1S33. 


Price  4  Cents . 


The  following  tract  presents  the  substance  of  two  discourses, 
published  since  the  death  of  their  lamented  author,  in  throwing 
them  into  one,  it  has  been  found  necessary  to  omit  a  few  passages, 
and  to  transpose  another.  In  other  respects  no  alteration  has  been 
made. 


~f$s  3 1 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT, 


The  subject  of  the  present  publication,  is  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  atonement,  according  to  the  usual  accepta¬ 
tion  of  that  term,  to  signify  satisfaction  made  to  God 
for  the  sins  of  men,  by  the  sufferings  and  death  of 
Christ. 

We  shall  be  very  anxious,  in  what  we  offer  on  this 
subject,  to  avoid  everything  like  misrepresentation  ; 
we  shall  therefore  refrain  from  employing  the  language 
of  its  advocates,  wThen  it  may  be  supposed  that  they 
have  spoken  unadvisedly,  and  have  not  intended  that 
we  should  understand  in  a  strict  and  literal  sense  the 
expressions  which  they  have  used.  In  return,  we  hope 
that  our  readers  will  rather  judge  by  what  will  be  now 
laid  before  them,  than  by  the  hasty  and  unfounded  ac¬ 
cusations  which  are  so  frequently  brought  against  us  by 
those,  who  have  a  zeal  for  God,  but  not  according  to 
knowledge. 

Observe,  then,  that  Unitarians  gratefully  acknow¬ 
ledge,  that  the  forgiveness  of  sins  unto  eternal  life  is 
the  gift  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ  ;  and  through  him 


4 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


4 


alone.  They  glory  in  the  cross  of  Christ ;  they  receive 
Christ  as  him  who  of  God  is  made  unto  us  wisdom, 
and  righteousness,  and  sanctification,  and  redemption  ; 
nay,  they  believe  in  an  atonement  by  Christ,  in  the  only 
sense  in  ivhich  that  word  is  used  in  Scripture.  It  is  not 
the  atonement  of  the  world  by  Jesus  Christ  that  we  are 
used  to  controvert  ;  but  we  deny  that  that  atonement 
was  effected  by  satisfaction .  There  is  no  such  word  as 
satisfaction  used  in  the  whole  New  Testament  ;  and  the 
word  atonement  is  only  to  be  met  with  in  one  place,  in 
the  New  Testament,  Rom.  v.  11.  u  We  also  joy  in 
God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  we  have 
also  received  the  atonement.”  And  in  this  place,  if 
you  consult  the  margin  of  the  larger  bibles,  you  will 
there  find  the  word  reconciliation  substituted  for  it.  u  By 
whom  also  we  have  received  reconciliation.”  And  the 
best  expositors  understand  the  passage  in  this  sense. 

But,  observe,  the  word  atonement ,  when  properly  un¬ 
derstood,  has  the  same  meaning  as  reconciliation.  It  is 
made  up  of  two  English  words,  at  and  one ,  with  the 
termination  ment ;  now,  to  be  at  one,  is  the  same  thing 
as  to  be  in  concord,  to  be  united,  reconciled  ;  and  at-one- 
ment ,  signifies  the  state  or  act  of  being  reconciled  or 
united  ;  and  is  the  same  as  reconcilement  or  reconcilia¬ 
tion.  So  that  in  any  passage  where  the  word  reconcile 
is  used,  we  might,  not  improperly,  adopt  the  word  atone) 
as  conveying  the  same  meaning.  For  example,  we 
might  translate  the  passage  in  2  Cor.  v.  18,  19,  thus  ; 
“  All  things  are  of  God,  who  hath  atoned  us  to  himself, 
by  Jesus  Christ,  and  hath  given  to  us  the  ministry  of 
atonement,  to  wit,  that  God  was  in  Christ,  atoning 
the  world  unto  himself,  not  imputing  their  trespasses 


5  THE  DOCTRINE  OP  ATONEMENT.  5 

unto  them,  and  hath  committed  unto  us  the  word  of 
atonement  :  we  pray  you  in  Christ’s  stead  be  ye  atoned 
to  God.”  But  then,  this  would  not  be  any  proof  of  the 
popular  doctrine  of  atonement,  for  in  this  passage  it  is 
God  who  offers  atonement  to  men  ;  and  we  are  describ¬ 
ed  as  receiving  the  atonement  ;  — *  expressions  that  are 
altogether  improper,  according  to  the  ordinary  view 
of  the  doctrine,  since  the  atonement  is  ordinarily 
considered  as  made  to  God,  received  by  God,  and  offer¬ 
ed  on  the  part  of  men.  In  short,  there  is  no  word  cor¬ 
responding  either  to  satisfaction  or  atonement  in  that 
theological  sense,  in  the  whole  New  Testament.  Now 
I  think  we  ought  always  to  be  suspicious  of  a  doctrine 
which  cannot  be  expressed  in  scripture  language. 

The  arguments  brought  forward  to  prove  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  are  of  two  kinds,  1st, 
Reasonings  drawn  from  the  proceedings  of  men  incases 
that  are  thought  to  be  similar  ;  and  2nd,  Inferences 
from  Scripture. 

I.  Let  us,  first,  examine  the  grounds  on  which  is  argued 
the  reasonableness  of  this  doctrine . 

I  believe  that  no  one  in  this  day  will  attempt  to  es¬ 
tablish  the  necessity  of  a  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of 
men,  upon  the  ground  of  the  mere  wrath  and  anger  of 
God,  as  an  offended  party,  so  as  that  he  could  not  be 
appeased  till  he  had  wreaked  his  vengeance  on  some 
one  who  stood  in  the  place  of,  and  suffered  the  punish¬ 
ment  due  to  the  offender.  These  are  sentiments  most 
unfit  to  be  attributed  to  the  Almighty  ;  especially  as  he 
cannot  possibly  receive  injury  at  the  hand  of  any. 
(C  If  thou  sinnest,  [says  Elihu  to  Job]  what  doest  thou 
unto  Him  ;  if  thou  be  righteous,  what  givest  thou  then, 
or  what  receiveth  He  at  thine  hand  ?  Thy  wickedness 

VOL.  VII.  —  no.  lxxiv.  1# 


6 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


6 


may  hurt  a  man  as  thou  art,  and  thy  righteousness  may 
profit  the  son  of  man.”  Indeed,  it  is  now,  I  suppose, 
universally  acknowledged,  that  God,  even  the  Father, 
is  the  spontaneous  source  and  original  fountain  of  salva¬ 
tion.  “  The  sacrifice  of  Christ,”  says  a  celebrated 
modern  advocate  of  what  are  called  orthodox  views, 
u  was  never  deemed  by  any  who  did  not  wish  to  calum¬ 
niate  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  to  have  made  God 
placable,  but  merely  received  as  the  means  appointed 
by  divine  wisdom  through  which  to  bestow  forgiveness.” 
Hence,  it  appears  that  all  those  representations  of  the 
plan  of  our  redemption  which  attribute  a  principle  of 
wrath  and  vengeance  to  the  Almighty,  until  changed 
unto  love  by  the  satisfaction  and  merits  of  Christ,  are, 
by  the  confession  of  all  parties,  unfounded  in  truth  and 
reason. 

It  is  also,  I  believe,  universally  admitted,  that  we 
cannot  place  the  necessity  for  a  satisfaction  for  the  sins 
of  men,  upon  the  ground  of  the  mere  sovereignty  of 
God,  and  his  unquestionable  right  to  do  what  he  will 
with  his  creatures.  In  requiring  punishment,  he  does 
not  act  the  part  of  an  arbitrary  sovereign,  who  makes 
his  will  the  law,  and  who  forbids  us  to  seek  for  a  reason 
of  his  proceedings.  God  is  a  perfectly  good  being, 
and  therefore  cannot  possibly  take  pleasure  in  the  mere 
sufferings  of  his  creatures.  Reason  shows  the  truth  of 
what  Scripture  declares,  that  God  u  hath  no  pleasure  at 
all  in  the  death  of  him  that  dieth.”  Punishment  is  in 
itself  displeasing  to  him. 

In  what  quality,  then,  must  we  consider  God  as  act¬ 
ing,  when  he  decrees  the  punishment  of  offenders  ?  — 
Certainly  in  the  quality  of  a  good  and  wise  Governor, 
consulting  for  the  public  benefit,  and  intending  the 


7 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


7 


maintenance  of  good  order,  and  the  vindication  of  the 
laws  which  have  been  placed  to  promote  the  welfare  of 
those  who  are  subject  to  them. 

So  far  intelligent  persons  of  every  party,  I  believe, 
are  all  agreed.  But  now  arises  this  question,  Can 
such  a  governor  as  we  have  described  abate,  or  in  any 
instance  dispense  with,  the  penalties  which  by  law  at¬ 
tach  to  his  offending  subjects  ?  It  is  said  he  cannot.  — 
That,  which  is  the  most  kingly  and  beseeming  attribute 
that  belongs  to  earthly  sovereigns,  is  withheld  from  the 
King  of  kings.  He  may  not,  it  is  said,  in  any  instance 
exercise  his  merciful  compassion,  until  the  law  (of  which 
he  is  the  sole  enactor)  is  by  some  equivalent  punish¬ 
ment  satisfied,  and  its  penal  claims  discharged. 

Now,  first,  as  to  the  reasonableness  or  justice  of  the 
expedient  here  supposed  to  be  resorted  to,  in  order  to 
enable  God,  as  the  moral  governor  of  the  universe,  to 
forgive  offenders,  can  it  be  proved  just,  can  it  even  be 
proved  possible,  to  transfer  guilt  from  one  to  another, 
so  that  the  guilty  shall  escape,  and  the  innocent  be 
punished  ?  Guilt  is,  in  the  nature  of  things,  incapable 
of  being  transferred ;  and  no  principle  of  justice  can 
demand,  can  even  permit,  that  the  innocent  should  be 
substituted  for  the  guilty,  as  incurring  the  penalty  of 
the  law.  Who  ever  heard  of  such  a  principle  as  a  feature 
of  human  legislation  ?  Even  the  tyrant  Dionysius, 
when  Damon  generously  urged  him  to  put  him  to  death 
in  the  room  of  his  friend  Pythias,  started  back  from 
such  a  proposal,  and  forgave  them  both. 

There  are  cases,  no  doubt,  in  which  the  innocent 
suffer  in  consequence  of  the  crimes  of  the  guilty  ;  as 
when  children  are  impoverished  or  disregarded,  on 
account  of  the  sins  of  their  parents.  However,  we 


8 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT.  • 


8 


ought  to  distinguish  between  sufferings  and  punish¬ 
ment.  Who  denies  that  an  innocent  person  may  suf¬ 
fer  ?  But  can  it  with  propriety  he  said  that  he  is  pun¬ 
ished  ?  He  has  no  consciousness  of  guilt  ;  he  partakes 
of  the  consolations  which  flow  from  religion,  and  bears 
his  sufferings  with  patience  and  pious  resignation  ;  not 
like  a  criminal,  overwhelmed  with  self  reproaches,  and 
agitated  with  bad  and  tormenting  passions.  Besides, 
there  is  here  no  substitution  of  the  sufferings  of  the 
innocent  for  the  punishment  of  the  guilty.  Bad  parents, 
while  they  live,  suffer  for  their  crimes  in  their  own 
persons,  and  are  tormented  by  reflecting  on  the  evils 
which  they  have  brought  upon  their  children  ;  and 
their  crime,  and  consequent  future  punishment,  must 
be  aggravated,  not  remitted,  by  what  their  children 
suffer. 

Another  example  is  sometimes  produced,  in  which  it 
is  thought  that  there  is  some  resemblance  to  the  satis¬ 
faction  supposed  to  be  made  by  Christ  for  the  sins  of 
men.  It  is  when  a  person,  who  has  become  surety, 
under  a  pecuniary  bond,  for  the  good  behavior  of  an¬ 
other,  is  made  to  forfeit  the  bond  in  consequence  of 
that  person’s  misconduct.  But  surely  this  is  not  to  the 
purpose.  The  forfeiture  of  the  bond  is  the  just  penalty 
of  his  own  rashness,  in  pledging  himself  for  the  be¬ 
havior  of  an  ill-disposed  person,  to  the  detriment  of 
the  public  ;  and  the  forfeiture  of  the  security  does  not 
release  the  offender  himself,  if  he  can  be  found,  from 
the  penalties  which  the  law  has  affixed  to  his  offence. 

But  supposing  we  were  to  grant  it  possible,  and  if 
possible  then  just,  to  impute  guilt  to,  and  inflict  punish¬ 
ment  on,  one,  as  the  means  by  which  another  might  es¬ 
cape  the  punishment  due  to  his  crimes,  can  it  be  shown 


9 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


9 


that,  in  the  case  of  the  offences  of  men  against  the  laws 
of  God,  it  was  necessary  to  resort  to  such  a  measure, 
in  order  that  he  may  be  enabled  to  release  them  from 
the  penalties  denounced  against  them  ?  Is  the  Al¬ 
mighty  debarred  from  a  power  which  all  law-givers 
exercise,  of  relaxing,  when  it  is  thought  fit,  the  con¬ 
dition  by  which  he  binds  to  the  observance  of  his 
laws  ?  This  cannot  be  maintained  ;  for  it  must  be  ad¬ 
mitted  that  the  very  thing  supposed,  viz.  to  accept  of 
the  punishment  of  a  person  substituted  for  the  offender, 
is  actually  to  alter  the  conditions  originally  appointed 
as  sanctions  of  the  law.  In  every  community  that 
ever  existed  under  the  dominion  of  law,  there  has  al¬ 
ways  resided  somewhere  a  power  of  abating  and  alter¬ 
ing  the  penalties  directed  against  particular  offences. 
And  who  will  take  upon  him  to  assert,  even  of  an 
earthly  sovereign,  that  it  enhances  the  dignity  of  his 
person,  or  adds  glory  to  his  crown,  to  be  set  forth  as 
an  inexorable  and  unrelenting  judge  ?  Can  it  then  be 
becoming  to  deny  that  the  Almighty  Ruler  of  all  things 
is  able  to  exercise  his  clemency  ?  a  clemency,  which 
must  far  exceed  everything  of  the  kind  that  resides 
in  the  breasts  of  earthly  potentates.  It  certainly,  then, 
cannot  be  maintained,  that,  when  the  Almighty  desired 
to  forgive  his  offending  creatures,  there  existed  some 
necessity,  that  compelled  him  to  exact  the  strict  pay¬ 
ment  of  penalties  which  he  was  otherwise  disposed  to 
remit  ;  and  that  there  was  no  way  but  that  of  requiring 
full  satisfaction,  through  the  sufferings  and  death  of 
Christ,  by  which  he  could  justly  be  merciful.  —  Indeed, 
it  is  acknowledged  by  several  ancient  Authors  in  the 
Christian  church,  particularly  by  Athanasius  and  Au- 


10 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


10 


gustine,  that  God  might  have  saved  us  by  his  own  will, 
without  the  intervention  of  Jesus  Christ  ;  and  Bernard 
asks,  u  Who  knows  but  that  the  Almighty  had  the 
choice  of  various  methods  of  our  redemption,  justifica¬ 
tion,  and  deliverance  ?”  From  which  it  is  evident  that, 
in  the  opinion  of  these  ancient  fathers,  the  satisfaction 
made  by  Christ  for  the  sins  of  men,  was  not  essential 
to  the  forgiveness  of  sins. 

It  follows,  from  all  these  considerations,  that  the  law 
of  God  is  not  of  that  irrevocable,  implacable  descrip¬ 
tion  which  it  is  sometimes  represented  to  be  ;  but  that 
it  may  naturally  be  expected  to  admit  of  some  relaxa¬ 
tion,  and  not  necessarily  to  require  full  satisfaction. 

I  will  not  however  deny,  that  for  the  maintenance 
of  good  order  in  the  moral  universe,  it  is  necessary 
that  limits  and  conditions  should  be  affixed  to  the  exer¬ 
cise  of  the  divine  clemency,  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ; 
otherwise  those  laws  which  are  designed  for  the  wel¬ 
fare  of  his  creatures  will  be  neglected  and  disobeyed. 
But  let  us  duly  consider  whether,  if  it  be  for  no  other 
object  than  to  secure  the  reverence  and  obedience  of 
mankind  to  these  righteous  laws,  other  limits  and  con¬ 
ditions  may  not  be  found,  that  will  have  at  least  as 
good  a  tendency  this  way.  What  if  the  necessary  con¬ 
dition  of  forgiveness  be  a  hearty  repentance,  and  a 
strict  amendment  of  life,  will  this  have  no  tendency  to 
enhance  our  veneration  for  that  law  which  is  declared 
to  be  the  rock  of  our  life  and  the  necessary  condition 
of  our  salvation  ?  Shall  we  say,  That  until  a  satisfaction 
for  sin  is  provided,  he  that  is  sorry  for  his  sins,  is  as 
much  to  be  despaired  of,  as  he  that  continues  in  them  p 
If  “there  be  joy  in  heaven  over  one  sinner  that  repent- 
eth,”  does  it  not  follow,  that  the  holiest  and  most  en- 


11 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


11 


lightened  part  of  God’s  moral  creation  perceives  no  ob¬ 
stacle  but  impenitence  in  the  way  of  the  full  exercise 
of  mercy  towards  offenders  ?  If  it  be  otherwise,  what 
explanation  shall  we  find  of  many  ample  declarations 
which  the  Almighty  has  made  in  his  holy  word,  of 
his  will  and  power  to  save  the  penitent  sinner  ?  One 
remarkable  passage,  taken  from  the  18th  chapter  of 
Ezekiel,  will  suffice  to  impress  the  force  of  this  argu¬ 
ment.  “  If  the  wicked  will  turn  from  all  his  sins  that 
he  hath  committed,  and  keep  all  my  statutes,  and  do 
that  which  is  lawful  and  right,  he  shall  surely  live,  he 
shall  not  die.  All  his  transgressions  that  he  hath  com¬ 
mitted,  they  shall  not  be  mentioned  unto  him.  In  his 
righteousness  that  he  hath  done,  he  shall  live.  Have 
I  any  pleasure  at  all  that  the  wicked  shall  die,  saith  the 
Lord  God,  and  not  that  he  should  return  from  his  ways 
and  live  ?  When  the  wicked  turneth  away  from  his 
wickedness,  and  doeth  that  which  is  lawful  and  right, 
he  shall  save  his  soul  alive.  Because  he  considereth 
and  turneth  away  from  his  wickedness  that  he  hath 
committed,  he  shall  surely  live,  he  shall  not  die.” — 
Now  what  exception  can  we  possibly  take  to  this  pas¬ 
sage  of  holy  writ  ?  Shall  we  dare  to  aver  that  the  de¬ 
mands"  of  justice  are  not  satisfied  by  a  course  of  pro¬ 
ceeding  which  God  has  expressly  declared  to  be  his 
own  ;  or  does  it  not  approve  itself  to  reason,  as  calcu¬ 
lated  in  every  view  to  secure  our  reverence  to  laws  es¬ 
tablished  on  such  equitable  and  unimpeachable  princi¬ 
ples  of  wisdom  and  goodness  ? 

II.  Having  thus  examined  the  arguments  which  have 
been  drawn  from  the  nature  of  things,  and  from  what 
we  know  of  the  natural  principles  of  justice  and  equity, 


12 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


12 


to  prove  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction,  by  the  sufferings 
and  death  of  Christ,  and  given  many  reasons  why  they 
do  not  appear  solid  or  conclusive  5  we  shall  now  pro¬ 
ceed  to  advert  to  some  of  the  arguments  drawn  from 
scripture . 

The  doctrine  of  atonement  for  the  sins  of  men,  by 
satisfaction  received  from  the  sufferings  and  death  of 
Christ,  is  argued  from  the  comparisons  made  by  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament,  between  the  death  of 
Christ,  and  the  sacrifices,  and  other  ceremonies,  under 
the  Jewish  law'.  In  this  argument  it  is  assumed,  that 
the  sacrifices  and  offerings  under  the  Jewish  law  pro¬ 
ceeded  upon  the  notion  of  satisfaction  for  sin,  by  vica¬ 
rious  punishment  ;  which  cannot,  I  think,  be  proved. 
Victims  were  slain  upon  the  altar  of  the  Lord,  not  only 
as  sin-offerings,  but  as  peace-offerings  and  as  burnt- 
offerings. 

Now,  peace-offerings  were  intended  to  express  the 
thanks  of  the  offerer  for  the  mercies  of  Providence,  and 
were  the  acts  of  grateful  homage  ;  and  therefore  there 
could  be  no  idea  of  punishment  included  in  the  sacrifice 
of  a  victim  in  such  instances.  Burnt-offerings,  also, 
had  no  reference  to  sin,  but  were  offered  to  God  as  to 
the  Creator,  Lord,  and  Preserver  of  all,  who  is  worthy 
of  all  worship  and  honor.  From  this  it  is  most  evident, 
that  under  the  Jewish  law,  the  death  of  a  victim  in 
sacrifice  does  not  of  itself  express  the  idea  of  punish¬ 
ment  for  sin.  Sacrifices  and  offerings  to  God  taken 
from  the  fruits  of  the  earth,  or  from  the  animals  which 
lived  upon  its  surface,  seem  to  have  formed  the  earliest 
kind  of  worship  which  mankind  paid  to  their  Creator. 
They  were  not,  then,  capable  of  a  more  refined  kind  of 
worship,  and  the  idea  of  offering  gifts  to  God  was  suit- 


13 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


13 


able  to  their  rude  notions  of  gratitude  and  piety.  This 
became  a  part  of  the  religion  of  the  Jews,  not  from  any 
intrinsic  worth  or  propriety  that  there  was  in  such  a 
mode  of  worship,  hut  because  it  suited  best  the  untutor¬ 
ed  mind  of  men  under  this  temporary  and  imperfect 
institution.  The  holy  men  who  lived  and  wrote  under 
the  Jewish  dispensation,  are  at  great  pains  to  confute 
the  supposition  that  there  was  any  intrinsic  worth  in 
such  offerings,  and,  indeed,  studiously  enlarge  upon  the 
inefficacy  and  unimportance  of  the  rite  of  sacrifice.  To 
show  this,  I  need  only  produce  one  or  two  passages 
from  the  Old  Testament.  “  Thou  desirest  not  sacri¬ 
fice,”  said  David  (li.  Psalm.  16,  17)  “else  would  I  give 
it,  thou  delightest  not  in  burnt-offering.  The  sacrifices 
of  God  are  a  broken  spirit,  a  broken  and  a  contrite 
heart  thou  wilt  not  refuse.”  “  To  what  purpose,”  saith 
Jehovah  by  his  prophet  (Isaiah  i.  2)  “  are  a  multitude 
of  your  sacrifices  unto  me  ?  I  am  full  of  the  burnt  of¬ 
ferings  of  rams,  and  the  fruits  of  fed  beasts,  and  I  de¬ 
light  not  in  the  blood  of  bullocks,  or  of  lambs,  or  of  he- 
goats.”  And  also  that  splendid  passage  in  the  book  of 
Micah,  (vi.  6,  8)  “Wherewith  shall  I  come  before  the 
Lord,  and  bow  myself  before  the  Most  High  ?  —  Shall 
I  come  before  him  with  burnt-offerings,  with  calves  of 
a  year  old  ?  He  hath  shown  thee,  O  man,  what  is 
good,  and  what  doth  the  Lord  thy  God  require  of  thee, 
but  to  do  justly,  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly 
with  thy  God  ?” 

Thus  the  writers  of  the  Jewish  church  absolutely 
disown  the  notion  of  being  able  in  any  way  to  present 
God  with  an  equivalent  or  compensation  to  induce  him 
to  pardon  ;  and  it  is  plain  they  had  no  idea  that  their 
sacrifices  under  the  law  were  a  type  or  symbol  of  any 

VOL.  VII.  —  no.  i.xxiv.  2 


14 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


14 


equivalent  or  satisfaction  which  should  subsequently  be 
given  for  the  sins  of  men.  For  if  they  had  viewed 
their  sacrifices  in  this  important  light,  they  certainly 
could  not  have  spoken  of  them  as,  under  any  view,  tri¬ 
fling  or  insignificant. 

There  certainly  is  a  great  number  of  passages  in  the 
New  Testament,  in  which  the  death  of  Christ  is  com¬ 
pared  to  that  of  a  victim  in  sacrifice  ;  and  he  is  also, 
in  several  places,  said  to  have  redeemed  us  with  his 
blood,  to  have  borne  our  sins,  to  have  given  himself 
without  spot  to  God,  that  he  might  purge  our  conscience 
from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God.  Expressions 
of  this  kind,  brought  together  from  different  parts  of  the 
New  Testament,  present  an  appearance  of  confirming 
very  strongly  the  doctrine  of  the  real  sacrifice  of  Christ  ; 
and  when  they  are  adduced,  are  usually  appealed  to 
with  great  confidence,  as  admitting  of  no  other  meaning, 
without  the  adoption  of  a  violent  and  unnatural  method 
of  interpretation.  But  there  is  an  obvious  reason  for 
suspecting  that  no  such  interpretation  of  these  passages 
can  appear  natural ,  since  they  evidently  refer  to  rites 
and  customs  with  which  we  are  by  no  means  familiar  ; 
and  being  originally  written  by  persons  brought  up  in 
the  Jewish  religion,  for  the  use  of  those  who  were  per¬ 
fectly  acquainted  with  its  forms  and  ceremonies,  might 
very  naturally  be  employed  to  express  ideas  which  will 
be  almost  certain  to  appear  to  us  fanciful  and  unnatural. 
We  are  not  to  expect  that  we  should  be  able  to  under¬ 
stand  scriprure,  without  taking  such  circumstances  into 
consideration.  Happily,  indeed,  the  New  Testament 
was  written  by  plain  men,  whose  humble  rank  and  want 
of  learning,  preserved  them  from  the  obscurity  which 
arises  from  the  affectation  of  science,  and  qualified 


15 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


15 


them  for  writing  works  which  were  intended  for  the  use 
of  all  mankind.  But  that  they  should  be  perfectly  free 
from  modes  of  expression  peculiar  to  their  own  country 
and  religion,  and  derived  from  the  circumstances  of 
their  own  times,  was  not  to  be  expected,  and  if  practica¬ 
ble,  would  probably  have  been  productive  of  no  real 
benefit  5  since  it  would  have  deprived  their  works  of 
those  features,  which  furnish  a  powerful  argument  for 
their  genuineness. 

We  should  soon  find  ourselves  involved  in  the  most 
palpable  errors,  if  we  always  adopted  that  which  ap¬ 
peared  the  most  obvious  and  natural  interpretation  of 
every  passage.  The  most  natural  interpretation  of  the 
words  of  Christ  respecting  the  Lord’s  Supper,  “  This 
is  my  body,”  is  that  which  the  Roman  Catholics  give 
to  them  ;  but  we  are  not  for  that  reason  bound  to  sub¬ 
scribe  to  the  absurd  doctrine  of  transubstantiation.  We 
must  make  use  of  common  sense,  and  consider  the 
general  purport  and  strain  of  Scripture,  or  we  shall 
make  both  heresy  and  nonsense  of  various  parts  of  it. 
It  is  an  obvious  rule  in  perusing  any  work,  to  interpret 
that  which  is  obscure,  consistently  with  that  which  is 
plain  ;  and  where  language  is  used  which  is  evidently 
figurative,  which  is  borrowed  from  some  other  subject, 
and  is  applied  by  way  of  illustration  or  ornament,  to  al- 
lowr  a  greater  latitude  of  interpretation,  than  when  the 
terms  are  simple,  and  strictly  appropriate  to  the  subject 
in  hand. 

The  general  question,  then,  to  be  determined,  with 
respect  to  passages  of  this  nature  occurring  so  fre¬ 
quently  in  the  New  Testament,  is  this  ;  Can  a  method 
be  discovered  of  accounting  for  the  application  to  Christ 
of  such  expressions  as  are  borrowed  from  the  ceremo- 


16 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


16 


nies  of  the  Jewish  law,  without  supposing  that  any 
exact  and  close  correspondence  was  originally  intend¬ 
ed  ;  and  such  a  method  as  shall  leave  unimpeached  the 
credit  and  authority  of  the  Christian  Scriptures  as  the 
divinely  appointed  rule  and  standard  of  our  faith  ?  We 
think  that  such  a  method  may  be  discovered,  and  ought 
to  be  applied^  unless  we  be  resolved  to  charge  upon 
scripture  the  obscurity  and  uncertainty  which  are  the 
result  of  our  previous  prejudices. 

Suppose  the  case  of  men  born  Jews,  and  brought  up 
in  the  pious  profession  of  the  Jewish  religion,  attending 
with  devout  assiduity  upon  the  temple  worship,  and  “in 
all  the  ordinances  of  the  law  blameless.”  Suppose  them 
to  have  arrived  at  a  mature  age,  with  their  religious 
habits,  sentiments  and  expressions,  modelled  after  the 
form  of  a  ritual  and  ceremonial  dispensation  ;  and  at 
that  period  let  them  be  introduced  to  the  knowledge  of 
a  more  spiritual,  purer  system  of  religious  faith  and 
practice,  and  let  them  become  inspired  apostles  and 
writers  under  this  new  dispensation  ;  let  them  have  oc¬ 
casion  to  write  epistles  to  separate  communities  of  be¬ 
lievers,  composed  in  a  considerable  degree  of  men 
brought  up,  like  themselves,  in  an  attachment  to  the 
ancient  institutions  of  Moses.  What  will  naturally  be 
the  style  of  their  religious  writings  ?  Certainly  it  will 
be  Jewish  ;  and  where  religious  expressions  already  in 
frequent  and  devout  use  appear  applicable  to  new  topics, 
they  will  be  used  in  preference  to  others,  of  which  no 
definitions  are  at  hand,  or  which  must  be  made  on  pur¬ 
pose.  This  would  naturally  be  their  style  of  writing. 
And  there  would  be  a  great  advantage  in  its  being  so. 
For  the  more  familiar  the  language,  the  better  it  is  un¬ 
derstood  ;  and  an  abstract  method  of  expressing  religi- 


17 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


17 


ous  truths  would  be  an  uninteresting  jargon,  quite 
foreign  to  all  practical  use  or  benefit. 

Again,  let  us  consider  what  impressions  might  na¬ 
turally  be  felt  by  those  writers,  and  by  those  to  whom 
they  wrote  ?  Something  of  this  sort  ;  —  that,  though 
the  understanding  fully  admitted  the  superior  excellence 
of  the  Christian  system,  yet  there  was  a  void  in  their 
feelings,  a  loss  of  some  of  the  pleasures  and  tastes  of  a 
religious  kind  to  which  they  had  been  accustomed,  anc 
a  frequent  tendency  towards  apathy  and  indifference 
on  the  subject  of  religion.  As  this  exposed  converts 
to  the  temptation  of  going  back  to  Judaism,  and  was  a 
stumbling  block  for  those  who  remained  in  unbelief,  it 
was  highly  important  to  provide  against  it.  And  it  was 
natural  to  take  the  method  of  providing  against  it, 
which  is  employad  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
The  Christian  Hebrews  had  been  reproached  by  their 
unbelieving  brethren  with  the  want  of  an  altar,  a  priest, 
a  sacrifice.  In  answer  to  this,  the  writer  shows  that 
there  was  a  sense  in  which  they  wanted  none  of  these. 

Let  us  now  suppose,  farther,  that  the  author  and 
principal  person  in  this  new  spiritual  kingdom,  after 
leading  a  blameless  and  holy  life,  in  continual  obedi¬ 
ence  to  God,  and  pursuit  of  the  best  interests  of  man, 
was  persecuted  on  account  of  his  goodness,  and  the 
sublime  objects  he  had  in  view,  and  indeed  voluntarily 
submitted  himself  to  the  effects  of  their  rage,  and  suf¬ 
fered  death  upon  the  cross  ;  after  which,  being  raised 
far  above  principalities  and  powers,  and  being  no  longer 
subject  to  their  control,  he  had  power  given  him  from 
on  high  to  send  forth  his  apostles  upon  the  ministry  of 
reconciliation  unto  all  nations  ;  delivering  from  the 
power  of  death,  by  the  evidence  of  his  resurrection^ 

VOL.  VII.  —  no.  lxxiv.  2* 


18 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


18 


and  from  the  power  of  sin,  by  the  proclamation  of  for¬ 
giveness  for  sins  past,  and  a  future  righteous  judgment. 
Can  it  be  said  to  be  unnatural  or  absurd  for  persons 
trained  up  in  the  ancient  religion,  to  describe  so  won¬ 
derful,  so  glorious  a  series  of  events,  by  all  the  images 
that  had  formerly  been  devoted  to  express  their  most 
sacred,  exalted,  and  delightful  conceptions  ?  Can  we 
wonder,  that  Christ  should  be  termed  a  sacrifice,  a 
priest,  an  altar,  a  mercy-seat  ;  that  he  should  be  com¬ 
pared  to  the  priest  entering  into  the  holy  of  holies  ;  and 
that  his  ascending  to  heaven  should  be  described  as  an 
entering  within  the  veil,  offering  up  himself  as  a  sacri¬ 
fice  once  for  all,  now  to  appear  in  the  presence  of  God 
for  us  ;  putting  away  sin  by  his  sacrifice  of  himself? 

Thus  we  see  that,  both  by  habit  and  design,  it  was 
natural  for  the  apostles  of  Jesus  Christ  to  express 
themselves,  on  this  animating  and  delightful  subject, 
with  a  considerable  latitude  of  language.  Nor  can  we 
see  any  objection  to  their  being  allowed  to  follow  the 
natural  bent  of  their  feelings  in  this  respect.  It  con¬ 
ciliated,  without  misleading,  the  Jews,  who  were  accus¬ 
tomed  to  such  allusions  ;  and  it  would  neither  mislead 
nor  revolt  those  of  the  present  day,  if  they  duly  reflect¬ 
ed  upon  the  necessary  influence  of  previous  circum¬ 
stances  on  the  minds  of  the  apostles. 

Having  proposed  this  general  key  for  the  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  the  passages  in  which  the  death  of  Christ  is 
compared  to  the  sacrifices  under  the  law,  it  is  proper 
that  I  should  now  examine  some  of  them  more  particu¬ 
larly  ;  that  it  may  appear  how  far  it  is  capable  of  appli¬ 
cation.  I  shall  confine  myself  to  a  very  few  instances. 

Romans,  iii.  24,  25.  “Being  justified  freely,”  says 
the  apostle,  “  by  his  (that  is  God’s)  grace  through  the 


19 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


19 


redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  whom  God  hath  set 
forth  to  be  a  propitiation,  (or  rather,  as  all  modern  com¬ 
mentators  agree  to  translate  it,  a  propitiatory,  that  is,  a 
mercy-seat)  through  faith  in  his  blood  ;  to  declare  his 
righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are  past, 
through  the  forgiveness  of  God.”  The  apostle  here 
represents  Christ  as  a  mercy-seat,  consecrated  by  his 
own  blood,  on  which  the  goodness  of  God,  as  it  were, 
takes  its  stand,  and  declares  his  gracious  purposes  and 
dispositions  towards  mankind.  What  was  the  mercy- 
seat  amongst  the  Jews  ?  Here  it  was  that  God  made 
the  glorious  declaration  of  pardon  and  favor  to  penitent 
sinners.  “  There,”  says  the  Lord,  “  I  will  meet  with 
thee,  and  I  will  commune  with  thee  from  above  the  mer¬ 
cy-seat.”  (Exod.  xxv.  22.)  With  what  propriety  and 
force  might  this  title  be  applied  to  Christ  !  He,  indeed, 
became  the  seat  of  mercy.  By  his  means  did  the  Lord 
God  commune  again  with  his  people.  He  was  the  me¬ 
dium  of  the  mercy  of  God,  in  proclaiming  to  the  world 
a  clearer  revelation  of  his  will. 

Christ  is  also  said  to  have  been  “made  a  curse  for 
us.”  Here  it  may  be  fairly  asked,  whether  by  his 
being  made  a  curse  is  meant,  in  the  eye  of  the  Jews,  or  in 
the  eye  of  God  his  Father?  It  is  allowed  that  the  Jews 
denounced  him  an  accursed  person.  But  if  by  accursed 
we  mean  living  under  the  displeasure  of  God,  this  was 
so  far  from  being  the  case  with  respect  to  Christ  in  his 
death,  that  in  this  very  circumstance  he  was  the  object 
of  the  divine  complacency  in  the  highest  degree  )  as  he 
himself  says,  tC  for  this  reason  does  my  Father  love  me, 
because  I  lay  down  my  life  and  it  is  a  general  obser¬ 
vation  in  the  scriptures,  that  “  precious  in  the  sight  of 
God  is  the  death  of  his  saints.”  But  the  verse  speaks 


20 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


20 


for  itself,  if  the  whole  be  read,  and  the  apostle  appears 
anxious  to  explain  what  he  means.  “  Christ  hath  re¬ 
deemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a 
curse  for  us  ;  for  it  is  written,  accursed  is  every  one 
that  hangeth  on  a  tree.”  Now  Christ  was  hanged  on  a 
tree,  and  therefore,  in  this  legal  sense  of  the  word,  he 
was  accursed. 

After  stating  these  instances,  let  us  repeat,  it  must 
be  clear  that  these  expressions  are  not  all  to  be  taken 
literally  ;  for  if  they  are,  they  absolutely  contradict 
each  other.  For  instance,  a  curse  and  an  acceptable 
sacrifice ,  are  totally  inconsistent.  For  to  render  a  sa¬ 
crifice  acceptable,  it  was  requisite  that  it  should  be 
pure  :  u  Thou  shalt  not  sacrifice  unto  the  Lord  thy 
God  any  thing  wherein  is  blemish,  or  that  is  an  abomi¬ 
nation  unto  the  Lord  thy  God.”  Either,  therefore, 
Jesus  was  not  a  curse,  or  he  was  not  a  sacrifice,  in  the 
sense  of  the  believers  in  the  commonly  received  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  atonement.  Again.  Christ  was  a  priest,  a 
victim,  and  a  mercy  seat  :  how  are  these  things  to  be 
reconciled  if  all  are  to  be  taken  literally  ? 

In  1  Cor.  v.  7,  Christ  is  compared  to  the  Passover  or 
Paschal-lamb  —  u  Christ  our  Passover  was  sacrificed 
for  us.”  Here  it  is  plain  that  Christ  is  described  under 
the  figure  of  the  Paschal-lamb,  just  as  the  Christians 
are  exhorted  to  be  pure  under  the  figure  of  unleavened 
bread.  But  consider  also  the  nature  of  the  sacrifice 
to  which  Christ  is  here  compared.  Was  the  Paschal- 
lamb  a  sin-offering  ?  Certainly  not.  The  death  of  the 
first-born  of  Egypt  was  the  punishment  of  a  crime  in 
which  the  Israelites  were  so  far  from  participating,  that 
they  were,  in  the  nature  of  things,  incapable  of  being 
guilty  of  it  ;  and  the  feast  of  the  Passover  was  meant 


21 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


21 


as  a  joyful  token  of  their  deliverance  from  the  bondage 
of  the  Egyptians  ;  and  was  therefore  the  farthest  pos¬ 
sible  from  a  satisfaction  by  vicarious  punishment. 

In  the  1  Oth  chapter  of  Hebrews,  12th  verse,  the  wri¬ 
ter,  speaking  of  Jesus  Christ,  says,  u  this  man,  after  he 
had  offered  one  sacrifice  for  sins,  for  ever  sat  down  on 
the  right  hand  of  God.”  In  this  and  a  number  of  other 
passages,  Jesus  Christ  is  compared  to  a  sin-offering  un¬ 
der  the  Jewish  law.  Nor  do  we  deny  that  Jesus  Christ 
might  most  properly  be  considered  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin, 
because  his  death  and  resurrection  were  necessary  to 
the  confirmation  of  that  gospel  by  which  sinners  are 
brought  to  repentance,  and  the  hope  of  eternal  life  ; 
and  therefore  reconciled  to  God.  It  will  be  said,  that 
this  is  not  a  literal  and  real  sacrifice.  But  can  it  be 
proved  that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  intended 
to  represent  Christ  as  a  sacrifice  in  the  most  literal 
sense  ?  That  they  did  not  seems  capable  of  an  easy 
proof,  from  the  following  consideration.  They  have  ap¬ 
plied  the  same  language  to  a  variety  of  other  subjects  ; 
which  they  certainly  would  not  have  done,  if  they  had 
conceived  that  Christ  was  a  real  sacrifice,  and  his  death 
the  great  original  of  this  religious  rite.  Thus  St  Paul 
exhorts  Christians  to  ic  present  their  bodies  a  living  sa¬ 
crifice.”  St  Peter  describes  them  as  a  spiritual  house, 
a  holy  priesthood,  u  to  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices  ac¬ 
ceptable  to  God  by  Jesus  Christ.”  We  are  exhorted 
in  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  “  to  offer  up  the  sacrifice 
of  praise  to  God  continually.”  To  do  good  and  to 
communicate,  forget  not,  “  for  with  such  sacrifices  God 
is  well  pleased.”  “  If  I  be  offered  upon  the  sacrifice 
and  service  of  your  faith,  I  joy  and  rejoice  in  you  all.’’ 
And  in  Romans  xv.  he  speaks  of  himself  as  the  minister 


22 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


22 


of  Jesus  Christ  to  the  guilty,  ministering  the  gospel  of 
God,  “that  the  offering  up  of  the  Gentiles  might  be 
acceptable,  being  sanctified  by  the  Holy  Spirit.”  Thus 
we  see  that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  were  in 
the  habit  of  applying  this  language  to  a  great  variety 
of  subjects  ;  which  makes  it  less  probable  that  when 
they  applied  it  to  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ  they  meant 
that  we  should  understand  them  literally. 

Besides,  though  it  is  under  this  image  of  a  sacrifice 
that  they  frequently  speak  of  the  death  of  Christ,  it  is 
by  no  means  the  only  representation  which  they  give  of 
it.  He  is  described  as  a  good  shepherd  laying  down 
his  life  for  his  sheep.  He  speaks  of  himself  as  a  grain 
of  corn,  which,  unless  it  fall  into  the  ground  and  die, 
abideth  alone,  but  if  it  die  it  bringeth  forth  much  fruit. 
He  is  spoken  of  as  a  captain  leading  his  followers  to 
salvation.  By  a  variety  of  figures,  he  is  described  as  a 
priest,  an  altar,  a  mercy-seat,  a  high-priest  entering 
within  the  veil,  a  sacrifice.  Here  it  appears,  that  what¬ 
ever  comparisons  are  made  between  the  death  of  Christ 
and  the  sacrifices,  and  other  ceremonies  of  the  law, 
they  are  all  capable  of  being  explained  in  the  same  way, 
as  expressions  having  great  beauty  and  propriety  when 
considered  as  figurative,  but  destitute  of  both,  if  we 
attempt  to  explain  them  by  a  literal  mode  of  interpreta¬ 
tion. 

Those  passages  which  represent  Jesus  Christ  as  hav¬ 
ing  ransomed  and  redeemed  us,  are  to  be  explained  in 
a  similar  manner,  by  reference  to  the  general  style  of 
sacred  Scripture.  It  is  common  in  Scripture  to  de¬ 
scribe  the  world  as  in  a  state  of  bondage  and  captivity, 
held  under  the  strict  dominion  and  oppression  of  ene¬ 
mies,  Now,  it  was  a  custom  with  most  nations  to  hold 


23  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT.  23 

their  captives  in  a  state  of  abject  slavery,  unless  a  sum 
was  paid  for  their  restoration  to  freedom.  Mankind 
were  slaves  to  the  grossest  superstitions  ;  the  slaves  o* 
sin,  under  the  bondage  of  sin.  From  this  slavery  when 
they  became  Christians  they  were  delivered,  they  were 
ransomed.  When  they  are  described  as  bought  or  pur¬ 
chased,  this  is  an  expression  used  in  many  cases,  where, 
in  a  literal  sense,  no  price  was  paid  for  the  deliverance. 
Thus  Exodus  xv.  16,  ‘‘Fear  and  dread  shall  fall  upon 
them,  till  thy  people  pass  over,  O  Lord,  till  thy  people 
pass  over  which  thou  hast  purchased.”  Deut.  xxxii.  16, 
u  Do  ye  thus  requite  the  Lord,  O  foolish  people  and 
unwise  ?  Is  he  not  thy  father  that  hath  bought  thee  ? 
Hath  he  not  made  thee  and  established  thee  ?”  God 
buys  a  people  when  he  interposes  in  their  favor.  And 
thus  Christ  purchased  us  by  his  death,  not  from  God, 
but  from  sin  and  the  power  of  death  ;  for  he  delivered 
us  from  the  evil  course  of  this  world,  and  gave  us  mo¬ 
tives  for  holiness  and  obedience,  arising  from  faith  in 
God  to  forgive  sin  unto  eternal  life.  So,  with  respect 
to  the  word  redeemed ,  we  are  described  as  redeemed 
from  all  iniquity  ;  and  we  are  exhorted  to  redeem  time, 
in  which  no  literal  notion  of  purchase  can  be  admitted. 

To  produce  all  the  passages  which  relate  to  this  sub¬ 
ject,  and  to  afford  distinct  explanations  of  them,  would 
greatly  exceed  the  limits  of  this  Tract.  What  has 
been  said  already,  may  perhaps  be  sufficient  to  enable 
us  to  understand  the  principles  on  which  they  may  be 
explained  consistently  with  the  general  sense  of  Scrip¬ 
ture  ;  and  so  as  not  to  contradict  our  established  belief 
in  the  wisdom,  goodness  and  mercifulness  of  God.  And 
shall  we  despise  the  riches  and  long  suffering  of  God, 
as  displayed  in  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  because  the 


24 


TIIE  DOCTRINE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


24 


means  which  he  has  adopted  do  not  exactly  accord  with 
our  expectations  ?  Shall  we  find  fault  with  them  as  not 
sufficiently  splendid  and  dignified  ?  The  simplicity  of 
the  means  employed  is  surely  one  of  the  greatest  proofs 
of  the  divine  origin  of  the  Christian  institution.  When 
we  consider  what  important  things  are  revealed  to  us, 
what  more  can  we  desire  ?  We  are  told  of  the  forgive* 
ness  of  sins,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  the  life 
everlasting ;  of  the  providence  of  God  ever  exercised 
over  us  and  in  our  behalf ;  the  ascension  and  immortali¬ 
ty  of  Christ,  the  perpetual  love  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus 
our  Lord.  Why  should  we  wish  for  knowledge  on  more 
important  subjects  ?  What  is  there  incomplete  for  di¬ 
rection  and  instruction  in  righteousness  ?  What  is  there 
that  could  have  a  more  happy  tendency  to  inspire  us 
with  the  most  fervent  love  and  veneration  of  God,  and 
to  fill  us  with  sentiments  of  the  most  sincere  gratitude  to¬ 
wards  Jesus  Christ  ?  We  look  to  Jesus,  the  author 
and  finisher  of  our  faith,  who,  having  overcome  death, 
is  become  the  author  of  eternal  salvation  to  all  them 
that  believe  in  him.  He  that  was  dead  is  alive,  he  is 
present  to  intercede  for  the  welfare  of  his  church,  and 
he  will  come  again  to  receive  his  faithful  followers  to 
himself.  May  we  earnestly  strive  to  prepare  ourselves 
for  his  glorious  appearance,  that  we  may  not  be  asham¬ 
ed  before  him,  at  his  coming,  but  may  be  received  unto 
glory,  and  honor,  and  praise,  through  the  mercy  of  God 
in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord.  Amen. 


